On Sat, 15 May 2004, Robbie Lindauer wrote:
> What about marxism or deconstruction?
Do you seriously expect a serious reply to such a question from members of
the fom list?
> If you say "an enduring value for FOM is proof" of the kinds you
> enumerated above, then wouldn't the excellent subject for study be the
> rigorous proofs of the axioms? Perhaps a secondary subject might be a
> clarification of the underdefined notions in the system like "set"
> "truth" "arbitrary function", etc.
Hmm... And what would those "rigorous proofs" begin with? Non-axioms?
> Say that the powerset axiom is false and there is no powerset of N.
> Then cantor's proof isn't a proof.
You are simply mistaken. This has been hashed out on this list before.
Cantor's proof does not require the powerset axiom. Please see
http://www.cs.nyu.edu/pipermail/fom/2003-February/006237.html
Neil Tennant